Steve,
We picked up on the dynamic braking characteristics straight away You are shack-on with that! That seems to be an area that needs implementation for further development in the PID for quad control. It could possible enable the use of more efficient and wider range of prop designs as well.Cheers,
Jim

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbotix

To answer Rusty Simon and Jim. Will concentrate on that probably with LED drive connections external.

Just to point out this is not a re-packaged standard off the shelf Atmel 8MHz P-type and N-type FET design from my friend Feng above. It has dynamic braking aiming to allow prop spool up and down equally fast, internal PID, synchronous rectification for higher overall drive efficiency. The 20V S08 FET's used are rated somewhere around 19A but we conservatively rate the controller at 11A.

Steve,
We picked up on the dynamic braking characteristics straight away You are shack-on with that! That seems to be an area that needs implementation for further development in the PID for quad control. It could possible enable the use of more efficient and wider range of prop designs as well.Cheers,
Jim

Sorry Jim, I just thought Feng had spammed my thread a little with a large number of his pictures - so I thought I would try to separate the two designs to avoid any confusion. Yes we need to learn about what this offers us with some flight testing. It may be able to handle heavier props more effectively.

Sorry Jim, I just thought Feng had spammed my thread a little with a large number of his pictures - so I thought I would try to separate the two designs to avoid any confusion. Yes we need to learn about what this offers us with some flight testing. It may be able to handle heavier props more effectively.
Cheers, Steve

To answer Rusty Simon and Jim. Will concentrate on that probably with LED drive connections external.

Just to point out this is not a re-packaged standard off the shelf Atmel 8MHz P-type and N-type FET design from my friend Feng above. It has dynamic braking aiming to allow prop spool up and down equally fast, internal PID, synchronous rectification for higher overall drive efficiency. The 20V S08 FET's used are rated somewhere around 19A but we conservatively rate the controller at 11A.

Steve

Very interesting design. My concern would be about tiny cracks developing in PCB & traces/solder points due to motor vibrations. These could propagate and eventually lead to failure. Your thoughts?

Did you notice that we made a "English" Sub-Forum in each Topic-Forum?

We try to do everything bi-language in english and german. Where we have time only to do one of them (eg. documentation), we do it in english since it's more international known.

Best regards
- Amir

Thanks Amir. BTW, on the subject of this thread, will the NG be capable of using pretty much any I2C controller, or will it only work with particular models? In other words, if these controllers that are being discussed are produced, would you anticipate any problems using them with the NG.

Thanks Amir. BTW, on the subject of this thread, will the NG be capable of using pretty much any I2C controller, or will it only work with particular models? In other words, if these controllers that are being discussed are produced, would you anticipate any problems using them with the NG.

Now, we currently support Holger's BLC, YGE30i and China-BLCs with Quax's Software. I can't see any reason why we should not be able to use the new controllers discussed here!

Especially since the NG uses HW probing and tries to detect available HW. It then activates only those part of the software involved with these (you could call it a kind of "driver"). The whole design is built such that we could replace any sensor with another one, write a new interface to it and then support both (if they are somehow distinguishable to the software).

This means you don't even have to configure which of the above BLCs you're using. Depending on the configured HW addresses they will be detected automatically (YGE30i's have different default addresses than Holger's BLC and Quax BLCs are controlled the same as Holger's). What's different between the BLCs is that you have a special shell command to program the addresses of the YGE30i if they are detected as new (special address).

Quote:

Nothing like a nearly un-answerable question

You need to find a better question... this one was easy...

@Serge: We try to finish up for the first release but there is so much to do. We are currently porting the SW to the new HW and there are so many changes that this will take some time to happen. We hope to have the first boards in the air for the CCC Congress so we can start beta testing. We hope to release soon after that point... but you should keep in mind that planing timelines is not something a bunch of hacking folks do very well...

Yes this is definately a concern. You can see some flexing in the video.
The "music" test is pretty aggressive. I beleive the non-motor mount is preferred by everybody.

Steve

I would definatly not put the motor mount as part of the ESC. I see too many broken solder joints on cell phones at work just from opening and closing the flips to have any comfort at all that this integration would be usable in the long run. Solder fatigue can be a real problem, best to avoid it at all costs in a quad.

Defiantly very cool, the efficiency seems to be outstanding. Have you compared it to a standard ESC for the same motors?

Images

Defiantly very cool, the efficiency seems to be outstanding. Have you compared it to a standard ESC for the same motors?

Richard

Hi Richard,
We have made the design with efficiency in mind, but at risk of giving you old data here are a couple of plots. Some software changes have since been made to correct an issue with retarded timing at higher powers. We really need to re-measure for this comparison, though you can see useful gains. Good to see our prop calibration is similar to yours, we have seen some variability between EPP1045's.
Steve